Monday, April 02, 2012

All Trayvon, All The Time

Over at P-F.com, a 30-year LE firearms instructor made a good post, but I couldn't help but notice that even he had internalized the whole "the dispatcher TOLD Zimmerman not to follow" meme, which is dismaying.

The dispatcher never "told him to back off and let the cops handle it"; that is entirely a construct of the media, based on the brief snippet of the 911 tape where the dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin. When Zimmerman answered in the affirmative, the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that."

That's a pretty ambiguous line. I've used it in situations ranging from "I'd really rather you didn't do that" to "I wish you would do that, but I don't want to be so forward as to straight-up ask you to." From that thin thread, the media has spun the legend of the dispatcher "ordering" Zimmerman not to follow, and Zimmerman "disobeying", and the legend has obviously stuck.

That legend was repeated by the pastor in Indianapolis who marched his congregation into the middle of the street for thirty minutes yesterday, blocking Naptown traffic in an attempt to get justice for Trayvon. I'm not sure who he thought might be driving around Indy on Palm Sunday with some pull in the Florida State Attorney's office, or how blocking their drive might get them to see things his way, but then a lot of things people do leave me baffled.

One of those baffling things is how any incident where the shootee is of a darker hue than the shooter is going to be cast in a Trayvon light now, such as the recent incident in Pasadena, which is just like the Trayvon Martin case, except for the fact that the dead guy was the suspect in an armed robbery call from a victim who had just falsely claimed that the guys who boosted his stuff had guns in hopes of a speedier response from the po-po.

At this rate, anybody shooting anybody will be painted as another Martin/Zimmerman incident, no matter the level of guilt or innocence of either party, as long as the pigmentation differential slope between the participants runs in the right direction.

Our local city government decided to make this past saturday night a "justice for Trayvon" memorial event. It really amazes me how many people don't realize that "justice" means allowing the legal system to do it's job and accepting the results. In this case, the DA decided there is not enough evidence to reasonably assure the guilt of Mr. Zimmerman. Innocent until proven guilty. Media hype and the public opinion of the media-fed masses is not proof. Arresting someone without proof of a crime being committed is not "justice".

The other thing? "This throws into question the Florida Stand Your Ground Law."

Who questions that? All the narrative after we actually started hearing details of the case is that Zimmerman was getting a handy beatdown. Folks better not have to rely on Stand Your Ground legislation when Sumdood is straddling one's stomach and raining fists down on one.

I first HEARD of this case when the Brady's brought it to light. Questioning the Stand Your Ground law. We know THEIR veracity is sound, right?

Even if the 911 operator HAD said "DO NOT FOLLOW THAT YOUNG MAN, AND THAT'S AN ORDER", it would add up to piddley-smurf. The 911 op has ZERO authority to tell a law abiding citizen (or anybody for that matter) what to do. Hell, neither does a police officer short of detaining someone for probable cause. The statists, of course, would like to give them that power, but I'm guessing most of those that argue that point aren't thinking about that and wouldn't like it if that really were the law. Certianly, we all WISH that Zimmerman had just politely driven away since that would have put an end to this crap before it even started.

"At this rate, anybody shooting anybody will be painted as another Martin/Zimmerman incident, no matter the level of guilt or innocence of either party, as long as the pigmentation differential slope between the participants runs in the right direction."

Well, yeah, sure. Haven't you been listening?

No one "defends" him/herself from an attack by a darker skinned individual, he/she "guns him down."

Darker kills lighter in an attempt at "social justice" and dark kills dark in frustration from racism imposed by lighter-skinned individuals.

You have to keep up with the narrative or you'll miss that its all your fault.

Reading the "30-year L.E. firearms instructor" post, I detect more than a bit of "only ones" in it.

I'd be curious to know where 30-year thinks citizens' - excuse me, "some clown's" - responsibility ends and police responsibility starts. Are citizens allowed to ask questions of unknown passerby? Or, should we remain mute and just stand and point, hoping those whose gun-toting is taxpayer financed take the hint?

I'll agree that wisdom will, in many cases, lead one to defer to the cadre of professionally-trained post-crime report takers, but without some degree of citizen involvement how is one to know when their expertise should be requested prior to the need for a report?

Under our constitutional form of government (at least, while we still have one) power and authority resides in the hands of "We the People." "We the People" hire, and sometimes fire, agents to perform certain tasks for us because it is more efficient to have those tasks performed collectively rather than individually, and some tasks require a certain level of knowledge and specialization; just because we hire a plumber to replace a pipe does not mean that we are ignorant or incapable of the pipe replacement process, but that exigences of time, expertise and possession of certain tools makes it more productive for us to do so.

In decades past a simple question or two - "Hello, can I help you find an address"? was indicative of both neighborliness and awareness rather than an attempt to incite. I suspect 30-year would prefer we engage his services at each intersection of neighbor and visitor, but that stands in contrast to how this country has worked for quite some time.

2) Your post contains another false dichotomy. Yes, you have the right to walk up to passers-by and initiate conversation; even ask them questions. Depending on the circumstances, it may or may not be the wisest thing to do. One would need to try very hard to not take that lesson away from the Zimmerman incident, and yet some folks appear determined to do just that.

Let me ask you this question: Assuming arguendo that events went down just as Zimmerman described them and he is never charged with a crime, do you think it was worth it? How much money would it take for you and Zimmerman to trade places right now?

For example, Skittles and Iced Tea. Trayvon had them, right? His reason for being out was because he was walking home from the convenience store and according to some accounts, the kid died with them in his hands.

Gospel. The Truth, the Way, and the Light.

'Cept, the only people to claim that are T-bird's parents. So far, there has been no police report confirming this, no receipt splashed across the front page of the NY Times proving Martin had recently purchased these wares, no security camera footage of him perusing the aisles of sugary goodness.

But Skittles and Iced Tea are now synonymous with this tragedy.

I'm not saying he didn't. I don't know if the cops routinely make a detailed list of everything in the recently deceased's pockets down to lint type and ticket stubs, so it's possible they discard such trivialities. But for something so important to the canon of this travesty, you'd think there'd be at least a bit of proof.

Lefties are also trying to claim that there's some standard neighborhood watch procedure that Zimmerman allegedly violated.

A lot is being dragged in that really has nothing to do with the central question of whether or not Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin to death. Martin's school record, Zimmerman's credit record, Skittles, neighborhood watch "procedure"... None of that bears on the central question, but indeed clouds the issue as both sides try to portray "their" guy as a white hat and the other guy as a nogoodnik.

Tam, I agree that, had he known how things would turn out, Zimmerman would probably have driven rapidly in the other direction. And, it's not at all unreasonable to envision a negative turn of events in situations such as this. Last I heard, you travel heeled because you have no way of predicting what untoward interactions may develop, nor how those interactions will proceed. Wisely, you actively seek to avoid interactions that possess the potential for negative outcomes. That is a very reasonable and prudent mindset, and something all of us should bear in mind. I suspect Mr. Zimmerman may wish he had.

There's a very large information gap between the time point of Zimmerman talking to Sanford PD dispatch and a shot being fired, so we're working in the dark. Zimmerman may have approached Martin as a shy choir boy offering to help carry his Skittles, Martin may have responded in a particular manner because he was in fear for his life for whatever reason, or something else entirely occurred. We just don't know, and there's a chance we'll never know exactly what happened.

My point is that we do not have to, nor should we, continually defer to the Bastions of Official Authority; we live in communities, and have a vested interest in their peacefulness and security. Police agencies play a substantial role in achieving those conditions, as do we citizens who live in or visit the communities.

That said, as Joseph pointed out so succinctly, prudence in our actions is warranted, even more so in some cases. But, even though it is prudent to not step off the curb into traffic despite having the right-of-way, that doesn't mean we forego crossing the street, it just means we respect the powers and risks involved when we do so and act accordingly.

In the story about the Pasadena incident, this line stood out :"McDade was said to have moved his hand towards his waistband, which provoked the police officer to shoot".From what I've seen, most young black men have to hold their pants up to walk, so they are constantly moving their hands toward their waistband.

So, Tam we should not initiate a citizen/ neighborhood watch and the time and energy, of that limited resource I call my life, that I exchanged for the dollars to buy my property is not worth defending?

Every one is ass-u-me-ing that Zimmerman followed to confront, it is possible he was just trying to keep an eye on the kid Travon, Who the noticed Zimmerman and decided to stop and confront the guy following him and a confruntation ensued.

I work nights as a security guard non-commissioned (unarmed). Observe and report. I have the benefit of a uniform and I have still been confronted and accused of profiling when a try to keep track of everyone that I don't know that passes through my property.

But why are we arguing about this? This is between the state of Florida and the parties involved. This has nothing to do with us no matter what the media wants to believe.

As other have pointed out, Hindsight is always 20/20, and it's easy to second guess the man on the ground.

If the kid had been up to know good Zimmerman had just let him go, and we found out about it we all be bitchen about why didn't he do something.

I am working on a Trevon post from my own personal POV (like anyone cares :) ) and one of the things I found was that the atmosphere of fear in Zimmerman's GATED NEIGHBORHOOD has been growing as related by this article:

Zimmerman's decision was not made in a vacuum. The neighborhood has been under a low-level attack by young black youths for over a year. We can all judge his decision to exit his vehicle - but in doing so, we need to try and understand why his neighborhood even felt the need to have an armed neighborhood watch.

What I see going on in the "professional agitator" community - Sharpton, Jackson, Black Panthers (to name just a few) is a bizzar desire to relive the race riots of my youth and to make Martin's killing as the trigger. I was downtown Detroit in the summer of '67 when it exploded - as did every major city at that time. These race-baiters seem to want death and destruction, to see miles of cities up in flame and conflict between the races like we haven't seen in over 40 years. If they keep raising the level of aggitation, they may well get just that. We are tetering on the very edge of yet another plunge into that chaos with summer fast approaching, a President who seems to be egging the process on, with the Black Panther's placing wanted posters across the nation and with a young, black segment of the population that seems all too willing to blame the "rich white guy" down the road for his lack of Nikes, ipods, a job and any other ill he/she seems to see . . .

Unless these black racebaiters roll back the rhetoric - and fast - we will see race riots this summer the likes of which most have not seen (or have gratefuly tuck into the far recesses of their memory). It's not going to be pretty Tam!!

"So, Tam we should not initiate a citizen/ neighborhood watch and the time and energy, of that limited resource I call my life, that I exchanged for the dollars to buy my property is not worth defending?"

Only someone who either never read anything I wrote, has shockingly poor reading capabilities, or is being willfully obtuse could draw that conclusion from any of my posts or comments.

"Every one is ass-u-me-ing that Zimmerman followed to confront, it is possible he was just trying to keep an eye on the kid Travon, Who the noticed Zimmerman and decided to stop and confront the guy following him and a confruntation ensued."

Speaking of "ass-u-me", show me where I said that? I have frequently referenced that Z. followed to keep M. in sight. Anyone who says they "know" who started the confrontation is talking out their ass.

"But why are we arguing about this? This is between the state of Florida and the parties involved. This has nothing to do with us no matter what the media wants to believe."

Jesus Christ on a turbocharged motorbike! Is there an echo in this place, or what? I've only been saying that for a frickin' week now.

For those that consider this incident a failure of "Stand Your Ground" law, one quip.

"When seconds count, the cops are minutes away."

I thought the 911 dispatcher forgot to mention to Zimmerman -- "We are on the way. We will take care of it."

I figure that getting folks out for Neighborhood Watch only occurs in neighborhoods with an ongoing problem. The kind of problems that the police haven't taken care of. The Watch, in theory, should be spotters and inform the police of problems, then let "justice" take it's course.

Walking (or driving) through a neighborhood with active Neighborhood Watch folk and signs should raise a yellow flag for anyone, resident or not, that there are problems and people are watchful and suspicious of outsiders and of "suspicious" behavior. That is, keep your nose clean, respect the concerns of the residents, keep it polite and quiet.

Did Zimmerman believe the police were not on the way? Was Miller doing something that raised above the Neighborhood Watch threshhold, or that Zimmerman might have been wary of?

Why was Trayvon walking through a "gated community" at night? Would Trayvon, at any time, have stopped beating the old guy to death, merely because the guy wasn't African American?

I dunno. It happened in Florida, I won't be setting on any jury or Grand Jury. And I don't see myself "gunning" for anyone. But setting one's self above the law, like the hate mongers, doesn't seem to settle any issues.

"McDade was said to have moved his hand towards his waistband, which provoked the police officer to shoot".All I get out of this is the Police always have a good excuse... I wonder how it would have worked for Zimmerman... He went for his waitband so I shot him>>>

"By calling, giving a description, waiting for the heat to show, and then saying "He went that-a-way!", he would have totally discharged his neighborhood watch duties."

So, what do think his duties as a neighborhood watch intell. You can't watch what you loose sight of. (And Yes I acknowledge you have sad that he was probable just following to keep an eye on him. But in this you seem to be implying that he should of known that the best option was to just wait for the cops.)

"Joseph said...Much like a pedestrian crossing a busy intersection, just because you have the right of way, doesn't make it worth stepping off the curb."

"Tam said...Joseph,

Thank you for summing up in a sentence what I've been fumbling around for whole paragraphs trying to say."

So, should we or should we not take the time to try to defend our life and property. There are no guaranties in life that the actions we take will lead to the results that we seek. The sentament in these comments seem to me to be it's not always worth practicing Self-defense, but when do we figure this out before or after the fact.

Ok, the everyone assuming coment was a little broad, mostly directed at the Media coverage (which I didn't make clear) and a setup for the following two sentences and the next pargraph.

"Jesus Christ on a turbocharged motorbike! Is there an echo in this place, or what? I've only been saying that for a frickin' week now." - Tam

I didn't write this post. Just because the media acts the jackass doesn't mean we have to respond to it.

For those of you out there who always wondered how a card-carrying Communist like Lee Harvey Oswald was magically transformed into a Right-Wing Death Beast and tool of the military-industrial complex, take notes. We're witnessing the process in real time.

Tam- yes, that has to be the standard. You have to see the gun. Or anybody could call up the cops and say "He's got a gun!" and then get them shot. The standard for officers should be HIGHER than normal folks. Just because I'm told so and so has a gun, doesn't mean they are telling the truth. I'm holding fire until I see it. I'll have my gun out, but I won't fire until I confirm not only they have a gun, but they are attempting to point it at me or somebody else.

There is no defense to what those officers did, except for the public's misperception that officers can do no wrong, and except for blatantly murdering somebody. There is no reasonable man who would shoot just because they were told the guy had a gun without seeing it first.

Have you not listened to the call or read the transcripts, then? (Tam)

I have to both, and I'd like to point out that Zimmerman's reply was "OK", and within a few seconds it sure sounds like he stopped moving and concentrated on his conversation about the rendezvous with the police on the way. And being worried that Martin, who he'd lost sight of, might be listening.

I suspect that's why at the end he didn't agree on a fixed place to rendezvous but rang off and presumably kept on moving. It's a real pity he didn't keep the police on the line because then we might know who initiated the confrontation.

The more I hear about the Trayvon Martin thing, the more inclined I am to beleive that I probably owe Zimmerman an apology for my original reaction to this thing.

Lesson learned.

I keep thinking abotu the hypothetical you put up the other day about wading into a fight between a bunch of twelve year old girls, Tam, and your comment about the Kobayashi Maru. It fits perfectly in this case, too, and in any case going forward where a white person finds themselves forced to choose between saving their own life by using lethal force, or letting themselves getting beaten or killed because the downside to that is far less severe than having your family's addresses posted publicly with the expressed intent of ensuring that someone does them harm.

THat being said, I think we can all learn something about this situation, which is to say that unless you have a badge and the qualified immunity that goes with it, you're best to hang back and/or retreat unless someone's life is literally about to end and you can do something about it.

One more thing - as much as i am not a "there oughta be a law!" type person, i am truly growing tired of reading stories where people are shot by police officers because their "hand went down to their belt area".

I've never kept track of my hands and how many times per day they go down to my belt area, but given as that's sort of their default position just by nature of my being a normally proportioned human being, I would guess it to be a lot.

Pastor Creach here in SPokane was killed because he had the audacity to have a gun on his own property. It was in his belt, in full view of the officer, and after the officer hit the 72 year old man in the knee with his baton, he fell to the ground. The officer said that the old man's hands went to his waist (after being hit in the kneee with a baton, I doubt the old man was keeping track to be honest). So the officer ten ringed him.

There really ought to be a law against shooting a person because his hands were near his belt. The officers have the advantage. Guns already drawn. Body armor. I doubt very much that we're talking aobut a huge amount of risk to them to wait one more split second to make sure he's not just adjusting his balls before putting a round through him. If you're so damned scared of the average citizen (and their dogs, too) that you have to shoot them over a hand movement, just to be safe, then find another line of work.

Chef: Never get out of the boat. Never get out of the boat. I gotta remember. Never get out of the boat. Never get out of the boat. Phillips: What happened? How many is it? Chef: A fuckin' tiger! Clean: What? Chef: A fuckin' tiger. Phillips: Tiger?

Now that really is some just step off the curb with out check both ways because you have right of way thinking.

There was an armed robery of the IHOP on my property a couple weeks a go. I need to make contact as to gather info for my report. Do I walk up on the blindside of the Cruser, trusting the armed officer that is dealing with an armed robery suspect will if startled by me make the right choice of not shooting me. Or, do I walk slowly wide around the vehicle keeping my hands in site, can't see into the cruser as the light are flashing in my eyes. Officer notice me calls me over I get my info, I go on about my merry way.

Ever hear of the OODA Loop? (observe, orient, decide, and act) Waiting to see the gun puts you at the observe portion of the loop where your possible assailant is already possible at act.

Hands kill. It is just common courtesy when two unknown possible armed individual meet that the hands stay in sight.

It is the whole purpose behind shaking hands, we really have lost the finer details of armed interaction.

I have in this case made the argument that in order to be a good witness, you have to actually witness stuff. Sometimes that stuff moves and necessitates you moving your vantage point in order to continue to be a good witness.

I also can see the point of not leaving the boat. Not stepping off the curb into the busy street is safe advice.

But......

Most neighborhood watch programs I have seen consisted of people 'walking' through their neighborhood. In groups for sure, but still they were not watching the neighborhood while driving around in cars.

If that is how Zimmerman performed his duties when doing his neighborhood watch thing - then that would set a baseline in his mind for what or where or how he would actually go about doing that neighborhood watch thing. In other words, looking at suspicious people while on foot, and not inside a vehicle, would not be abnormal. It's possible that because of that 'standard mode of activity' it would never have crossed his mind to remain in the car.

I have a VERY close personal connection to the Pasadena Police Department, and heard of the Mcdade shooting in the immediate aftermath before it went national. As you might expect one of the things that came up was that it would be compared to the Martin shooting if it hit the national media.

Once again we are seeing judgements passed by people with very limited knowledge of an event (Leatherwing, OtherWhiteMatt & Goober among them). Having done this job for 27 years, I would like to put in a couple of thoughts.

For one, there is a considerable difference in responsibility between having a weapon on you in the event that it might be needed to preserve your life and carrying a weapon as someone who is paid to and expected to go where most do not want to go and do what most do not want to do. You cannot compare the two situations because the only similarity is that a young black man was shot (something that happens weekly here at the hands of other young black men, but we don't want to talk about that).

Second, unless you've seen the elephant, stop trying to second guess what someone else did in a deadly force encounter, be it Zimmerman or the two Pasadena officers. I'll tell you this, all that stuff you hear about tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, tachypsychia, etc. is true times ten. Life as a cop is not "Gunsmoke" and we don't give them first shot if we can help it. Does the fact that I'm wearing a vest mean that I should take at least one bullet before returning fire? Damn, I hope the bad guy is good enough to make a for sure ten- ring shot or he might hit me someplace not covered by kevlar.

Goober, where did you get the information that their guns were already drawn? Maybe they were or maybe they weren't but if they were, it was because they were told that the suspects were armed and only a fool approaches an armed criminal with his gun in his holster. I knew that they were looking at arresting the RP for Involuntary Manslaughter, because his story that Mcdade and his accomplice were armed had a lot to do with the mindset of the officers on their approach. Oh, and as to shooting someone "because his hands were near his belt" was not what happened there. As in the Trayvon Martin case, you should wait for the facts to come out. Those officers are undergoing hell right now (self-inflicted and otherwise) and it's no guarantee of skating just because you have a badge.

Montie,Not sure what judgement I passed, other than that it's a bad idea to wear pants that won't stay up. The waistband clutch to hold up your pants looks a lot like grabbing something in the waistband.

My point is that young black men might want to start cinching up their pants for their own safety.

I rather like the no belt, pants too big style. It often turns what might be a long foot pursuit into a short foot pursuit ending in watching the suspect trip and fall when his pants drop to his knees. Somehow, the suspects have stayed the same age while I have gotten older and I can use the help these days. :)